ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND Point-of-care rapid tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 can be of great help because, in principle, they allow decisions to be made at the site of care for treatment, or for the separation of cohorts avoiding cross-infection, especially in emergency situations. METHODS A cross sectional study in adults requesting care in Emergency Rooms (ER), or the outpatient clinics of referral hospitals for COVID-19, to define the diagnostic characteristics of a rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 (the Abbott PanbioTM) having as a gold standard the RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Health personnel in a routine situation within an active pandemic in several cities of Mexico performed the tests. RESULTS A total of 1,069 participants with a mean age of 47 years (SD 16 years), 47% with a self-reported comorbidity, and an overall prevalence of a positive RT-PCR test of 45%, were recruited from eight hospitals in Mexico. Overall sensitivity of the Panbio test was 54.4% (95%CI 51-57) with a positive likelihood ratio of 35.7, a negative likelihood ratio of 0.46 and a Receiver-Operating Characteristics curve area of 0.77. Positivity for the rapid test depended strongly on an estimate of the viral load (Cycle threshold of RT-PCR, Ct), and the days of symptoms. With a Ct 25, sensitivity of the rapid test was 0.82 (95%CI, 0.76-0.87). For patients during the first week of symptoms sensitivity was 69.6% (95%CI 66-73). On the other hand, specificity of the rapid test was above 97.8% in all groups. CONCLUSIONS The PanbioTM rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 has a good specificity, but due to low and heterogeneous sensitivity in real life, a negative test in a person with suggestive symptoms at a time of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 requires confirmation with RT-PCR, and after the first week of symptoms, sensitivity decreases considerably.
Subject(s)
Cross Infection , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19ABSTRACT
The novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID 19) represents a major public health problem due to its rapid spread and its ability to generate severe pneumonia. Thus, it is essential to find a treatment that reduces mortality. Our objective was to estimate whether treatment with 400 mg/day of Hydroxychloroquine for 10 days reduces in-hospital mortality in subjects with severe respiratory disease due to COVID 19 compared with placebo. Material and methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of severe disease by COVID 19 through an intention-to-treat analysis. Eligible for the study were adults aged more than 18 years with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR and lung injury requiring hospitalization with or without mechanical ventilation. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: days of mechanical ventilation, days of hospitalization and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events. Results: A total of 214 patients with COVID 19 were recruited, randomized and analyzed. They were hypoxemic with a mean SpO2 of 65%{+/-}20, tachycardic (pulse rate 108{+/-}17 min 1) and tachypneic (32{+/-}10 min 1); 162 were under mechanical ventilation at randomization. Thirty-day mortality was similar in both groups (38% in Hydroxychloroquine vs. 41% in placebo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.51 1.53). In the surviving participants, no significant difference was found in secondary outcomes. Conclusion: No beneficial effect or significant harm could be demonstrated in our randomized controlled trial including 214 patients, using relatively low doses of Hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with severe COVID 19.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Diseases , Lung Diseases , Pneumonia , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: Rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Results: Sixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I-square=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-square=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. Conclusions: We found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients. For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99). Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.